dotCommonweal

Quid, me vexare?

As you can see, I learned a lot of Latin (and some of my basic outlook on life) from MAD Magazine. And it pretty much reflects how I feel about the Motu Propio--nice for those who want to hear the Mass in Latin again, but I don't worry that it'll turn the tide from the vernacular Mass by a long shot.

Anyhoo, please carry one the arguments in threads below (I think it says in the Catechism that you're not Catholic if you don't argue), but I thought it might be interesting to get some quick responses to this fill-in-the-blank statement:

"The WORST thing about giving parishes more freedom to choose the Latin Mass is [your thoughts here in no more than three lines, please.]

My guess is that the worst that can happen just isn't really that bad.

"...and some clergy will enter unprepared into the effort with a resulting drop in average quality. "A concern shared, as I understand it, by not a few traditionalists.Old rite - sorry, extraordinary usage - devotees have been in a curious position in recent years. Such masses are rare, but this has ensured that they are celebrated well.

Hello Michael,Nothing is impossible, but if the same is not true of "Ecclesia Dei adflicta" 19 years on, why would you so quickly assume as much of "Summorum Pontificum"? In 1988 there were (I believe) less than a dozen locations where the old rite was licitly celebrated in North America. Today there are over 600. Most of those were added in the last decade. So clearly interest is growing, not shrinking.

R.M.Six hundred locations in about 200 dioceses is still small potatoes. I live in a large diocese that tends toward the conservative side of the street and has three parishes celebrating the old rite once a week. Average attendance for each of these liturgies is 75 people that travel far and wide from this and neighboring dioceses. My parish has 12,000 people and an average Sunday attendance of 6,000 (about the national average). We have 11 Sunday liturgies (we have two liturgies going on simultaneously at 9:30 and 11:00). Even with the large size of this parish, there is not a "stable" community that is demanding an old rite liturgy to support one old rite liturgy each week. While there are people who do want the old rite, there is not the critical mass to make this MP more than a passing curiosity. Five years from now Catholics will remember this as the summer of the iPhone and not the return of the 1962 liturgy.

Back to the original contest -- "that, like seabirds or fish caught in plastic soda rings, we become so trapped in useful spatial metaphors of "progress" and "step back" there is even less informed and civil conversation on topics like the nature of God, morals, evangelization, or the use and abuse of our whole Catholic cultural heritage."

As a priest, I am stretched pretty thin now. Now I have to learn not only the Mass, but all the sacraments in Latin. Ready by Sept. 14th? Hah! If someone desired a funeral in the old rite, and died on Sept. 15th, they'd have to call the bishop for some other priest to come in a do it. The learning curve is pretty steep. BXVI is optimistic that there will be few problems, but he hasn't been the immediate pastor of a contemporary American parish. People get upset over petty things which split parishes. I can imagine hundreds of ways this could end badly. Priests that can say the old rite, unfortunately, will look down on priests that can't. Priests who love the old rite will try to foist the old rite on parishes, even if there is no stable group. (One thing that is ecumenical between liberal and conservative priests is the fact that they foist things on parishes all the time because they think it's a good idea. For example, if the pastor has a particular devotion to St. Zita, by God the entire parish is going to have it as well, with statues, novenas, prayers, special devotions, etc. etc. I doesn't matter what the people think, they're going to get it in spades. The phrase "stable group" is going to become as fluid as mercury. Don't underestimate the zeal (fanaticism?) of some of the clergy. Mark my words.

Incurring a financial obligation to pay the "traditionalist" priest who is called upon by the pastor to "say" Mass every weekend.Threatening the Novus Ordo pastor with a call to the bishop every time the pastor says "No" --- for whatever reason.Pressuring the Novus Ordo pastor to learn how to "say" the old rite.Ultimately telling the bishop how to run his diocese (how many bishops will want Rome involved here?).Fr. Matthew, are you telling us you are being required to learn the old ways? Perhaps my memory is poor, but I vaguely recall reading Benedict's "word" to "traditionalist" priestly groups that, "in principle," they cannot exclude using the new rite. AND YET, he tells these same fraternities/societies/institutes/whatever that they can elect to use only the old rite if they abide by the decision-making rules of their respective groups. Am I seeing different papal rules for different categories of clergy --- rules that perhaps favor the "traditionalists" over diocesan priests?Are you a diocesan or religious order priest? Please elaborate on why you "have to learn" the Mass and sacraments in Latin? (You don't need to mention any names here.) Thanks!

1. Folks might reconsider what "the spirit of Vatican II" really means.2. Then they might read the documents.3. The legitimate but possibly sometimes inconvenient rights of the faithful will be better met by the pastors who were ordained to serve them.

Hello Michael,"Six hundred locations in about 200 dioceses is still small potatoes."Fair enough. I wouldn't argue that.My only point was - it's growing. Rapidly in some areas. Often in the face of disapproval in the larger Catholic community and the local chancery. Between them the two main traditional apostolic societies (FSSP, ICRSS) will ordain about another 80-100 priests for U.S. service over the next 5 years or so, based on current trends. It is harder to guess about diocesan priests, but interest seems to be there as well given that recent TLM workshops for such priests sponsored by Una Voce and FSSP this summer were fully subscribed. Clearly, we'd still be talking about a small minority. The fact is that the great majority of Catholics are going to be going to the Pauline missal, period. But it's worth asking how much interest will emerge now that the old form has been fully legitimized, and more people have the opportunity to become exposed to it. The fact is - we really don't know. It will also likely vary by city and region.And of course - given the vocations crisis...well, another 80-100 priests...well, every little bit helps. But in the long run, I think Benedict is more interested in how this exposure changes the celebration of the new missal. A couple of the priests that attended the FSSP workshop I visited with say it altered their entire conception of the mass and the priesthood - and it seems likely to alter how they celebrate the novus ordo.My apologies for taking things off Jean's desired track. Let me add my own crack at it: A sudden run on mozellas might ensue.

Hello Fr. Matthew,You make some excellent points. Everyone involved should reflect closely on them.Learning the old missal is not rocket science but it can't be done overnight, either. A rudimentary knowledge of Latin is needed. The rubrics are exacting. Most priests aren't exactly burdened by loads of free time.Laity who want this are going to have to step up. They need to be regular parishioners, and they have to step up to support this with their time and money and energy if they want it. If you want your priest to offer the 1962 missal and related sacraments, volunteer to serve (and learn how to do it); form a schola; pony up the money for (say) an FSSP workshop to help train your priest; obtain missals and vestments; bother to actually show up for the masses. And above all be patient and understanding. Father has a lot on his plate, most likely. It will also help if youre actively involved in the rest of parish life and not just tucked away in a Tridentine cubbyhole. In the short term I expect a lot of the slack will get handled by bishops hitting up the traditional orders for help.

Fr. Matthew, I will pray for you. Keep up the good work you are doing. Most of us "Trads" aren't so bad. The priest at the local parish, where my children attend school, has already advised, "We're stretched too thin to add a Latin Mass to the schedule." While I wish it were otherwise, I'm certainly not calling the bishop Monday morning to put him on the spot! Most people will understand this is something that will not necessarily fit into most parishes by September 14. Or even by December 14. I'll just ping other nearby parishes to check their willingness to offer the extraordinary form of the Roman rite and pray that I find one that can. FWIW, I am currently a parishoner in another diocese that requires I commute an hour each way on Sundays, but do so happily to remain in good standing with the Church.Nothing would please me more than to drive less five minutes to Mass at a nearby parish and put that extra time into one of the many good causes they support.God bless you.

One neat thing about Latin is that it belongs to nobody, so it is equally common to everybody. In an international setting, for example, Latin is the most universally welcoming language possible.It's like ecclesaistical Esperanto.

Here is Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Society of Pius X as reported by the AP:"He said he hoped `that the favorable climate established by new dispositions of the Holy See' would eventually allow other doctrinal disputes that emerged from Vatican II to be discussed, including ecumenism, religious liberty. and the sharing of power with bishops."If this is at all accurate as to the view of the Society of Pius X, I think it suggests the futility of Benedict's gesture as a road to repairing the schism. Another papal gaffe?

Jean,If the Novus ordo is really a reform, why allow a return to the unreformed version? If it is not a reform, what is the point of having it at all. Is it merely a frivolous attempt providing choice? Or that most wonderful of things, diversity?

There is an old Italian expression: "Ad ogni ucello il nido e bello." To every bird his nest is beautiful. There are substantial reasons and benefits for the reform of the liturgy developed by the Second Vatican Council. Aside from that the fact is that people from both sides of the divide are equally adamant and contemptuous of others who hold different views.This absoluteness on both sides, on what is simply a celebration of the life,death and resurrection of Christ, is most regrettable. This is not rocket science. Yet the bs that has been propounded by both sides is mind boggling.

"Bishop mourns Latin decree as Jews ask for clarity" --- so says Reuters on July 8.Article also states the Vatican is expected to issue another document Tuesday declaring the Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. So much for Protestant and Orthodox Christians. So much for ecumenism ("Hi, I'm the pope, and my church is better than your inferior so-called Christian community :)Bennie is losing no time "reforming the reform." After all, he was a priest at Vatican II, and he knew better than all those ordinary bishops at the council :)I'm not quite sure what to make of this guy, but like him (and his ways) I don't.

This writer at age 12 in the 7th grade (1942) had no great difficulty memorizing the latin required to become an altar boy. Not exactly rocket science. The assertion that no one understood what was going on is balderdash. ( old english for hogwash) The happy clappy Mass of the past 40 years has produced, female altar persons, moronic extraordinary eucharistic ministers, hug me peace greetings, hold my hand during the Our Father, and wonder of wonders virtually no priestly vocations.Attendance is down down down and the budget is busted paying diocesan assessments to pay for Marxcist social programs. Other than that the novus ordo is just wonderful. I suggest 40 years of failure is quite enough. 1500 years of the "old rite" worked pretty well in retrospect. Stop the baloney and give us a chance. My b s alarm is going off!

Mine is, too, except it's all about this attempt by Benedict to bring back the Tridentine.I served the Tridentine, and my memory is different from yours. People didn't understand it so they dozed off into space, fingered their rosary beads, ad infinitum."Yours" had a chance for 1500 years --- and it failed!

Hello Mr. Gannon,It's pretty much what I expected Fellay to say. The Pope's own covering letter acknowledges that the liturgy is not the only issue.In a few months, the Vatican will likely take the next step of lifting the excommunications. Then serious dialogue will ensue. In the end it will come down to how much SSPXers want to be in full communion with Rome. The Pope will say: Fair criticism of the Council is one thing, but at the end of the day you have to accept it (and the new missal) as valid. Certain progressives are not the only ones reading the Council as a rupture or break with tradition, as he has emphasized repeatedly. In the end, my guess is that some will go for it, and some won't. Some will follow in Rifan's footsteps and take the olive branch. But some of those fellows are just too far gone, I fear. It's hard to leave your own Private Idaho when you've grown comfortable in it.Lurking at the back of all this is another audience: The Eastern Orthodox. Benedict wants to demonstrate to them that we can restore tradition to our liturgy and also make a serious effort to reconcile our own internal schisms. I don't think anyone should underrate this dimension of what's going on.

P.S. Which also raises the question of this next bombshell, the CDF document on the ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium...It's remarkable how this has stayed under the radar screen so far. But my guess is that it ends up employing some very careful language where the Orthodox are concerned, especially with the meeting in Ravenna coming up. In all likelihood some of the Orthodox patriarchs already have copies with special covering letters.

I must apologize for the cynicism of my last post. I have to remember not to post after a long weekend of Masses when my brain is fried. I guess when I said I "had" to learn the new rite, I was speaking as a diocesan pastor of souls. Benedict's concern is the salvation of souls. That's my concern, too. If I have to learn the old rite to save a few souls, so be it. It's not my priesthood, but Christ's. Personally, I have experienced the old rite and I can't understand the attachment people have to it, but hey, that's just me. People have their own memories and reasons. Saints can look beyond the externals to the heart of the liturgy in whatever form it takes in the here-and-now. Both liturgies have produced saints and led to genuine holiness. I wince, however, when people exalt the old rite to the heavens and denigrate the revised rite based on nothing but their own subjective experiences of the liturgy. The lack of the Prayers of the Faithful in the old rite, I hazard, would make St. Justin Martyr puzzled. St. Athanasius would be scratching his head how the "Sunday of Sundays" was celebrated on Saturday morning! Let's not forget: Vatican II had good reasons for looking at the liturgy. However, even with glaring redundancies, encrustations and some Rococco baggage, the old rite was still the Holy Mass that nourished my parents and their parents. If someone's faith is so weak that their soul's salvation is bound up with the old rite, I will make the sacrifice to learn the old rite and the other sacraments for the sake of their soul. (I am not suggesting that all people who love the old rite have a weak faith, but my motivations are toward those who do not have a strong faith.) Prieshood is about service, not what I want. All I ask of the laity is patience, not vengeance. All I ask of the clergy is prudence.

One unhappy result of this encouragement of the Extraoaordinary Rite of Mass will be the difficulties over the coming years for the parishioners. This diocese has many priests unable to manage Mass in Latin and at least two young priests who are very enthusiastic for the TLM. This pair - friends - are proposing to offer their present parishioners extra Masses on weekdays in the Ex'y Rite. They obviously hope this will prove popular in their own area. Let's suppose it does; when the time comes for them to move on, how is the Bishop to find a suitable priest for these Pro-Tridentine Catholics? It will severely limit his choice if he has to find a Latinist to succeed these men. And what of the parishes to which these dedicated Tridentinists move? They will get a priest in strange garb, speaking a strange tongue, performing an unfamilar rite. This is not the way to resove division at the heart of the Church.The Anglicans in England have boxed themselves into a similar tight corner over the question of women priests. Where the Vicar is opposed to women in ordained ministry, he can saddle the parish with "Alternative Oversight" for the foreseeable future. It's sad and painful.

Lesson learned: Do not expect that blog readers will a) follow directions or b) refrain from arguing.That said, thanks to R.M. Lender for his thoughtful post about how the laity will need to support the extraordinary rite through energy and expenditure. I think most of us on the parish level are looking at the change in practical terms like this, and I'd like to see more nuts-and-bolts discussions like this.Also thanks to Fr. Matthew for helping lay people see this from the perspective of a tired priest.Generally speaking, it seems to me that those who want the Latin Mass think it will stem the tide of Mass-libbing. The logic seems to be that in the olden days, we didn't have hand clapping, peace hugging, hand-holding at the Our Father, banjo picking, etc.--ergo, when Latin comes back those things will disappear.What, exactly, in the rubrics of the Latin version of the Mass forbids these things?

The problem is not that the Latin version forbids these things. The problem is that while the GIRM allows for certain, limited, pastoral interjections, many further liberties are taken with the texts of the Mass. Many.These are seen by some of the people as "friendly" and by some of the priests as "pastoral." But to me, they distract from the actual Mass. (Beautiful comment, Fr. Matthew.)

Balaam's Ass, have you been watching the Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame again?The priest is allowed to say the extraordinary form of the Mass for those who ask for it. That does not free him from his other responsibilities; it adds to them (as many have rightly noted.)

I keep thinking about how irrationally annoyed people get when those around them are speaking in a language they don't understand -- and hope that it doesn't spawn a wave of irritation among those who are present at Latin language rites on an involuntary basis. My idea of a universal language is not one that is universally unshared.

Nothing.If nothing changes, both sides of the debate will look silly. The traditionalists for seeing it as a dramatic step, and the non-traditionalists for seeing it as - well - a dramatic step.I expect very little to actually change, other than a few more places will offer the old rite, and in particular, a few diocese where the rite has been effectively banned won't be able to continue to do that any more.And Joseph - "Bennie" aka the Holy Father was more than just a priest at VII, he was a peritus to one of the council's chair board members - meaning he probably reviewed and commented on every VII document while it was being written. I would tend to think he knows of which he speaks.

Jean:You say: Generally speaking, it seems to me that those who want the Latin Mass think it will stem the tide of Mass-libbing. The logic seems to be that in the olden days, we didn't have hand clapping, peace hugging, hand-holding at the Our Father, banjo picking, etc.--ergo, when Latin comes back those things will disappear."We don't see stuff like that in my restrained parish here in the serene Northeast. At least not at any mass I attend. What is going on in the Middle West?

Hello Fr. Matthew,"Both liturgies have produced saints and led to genuine holiness."No question - and we shouldn't forget it, either."I wince, however, when people exalt the old rite to the heavens and denigrate the revised rite based on nothing but their own subjective experiences of the liturgy."I think you're in the clover here, or near it - the problem may be that so many have not experienced the best of the new rite, thanks to excessive creativity or abuses over the years.This is not to suggest that the Pauline missal must be done as Tridentine Lite, so to speak, but Pope Benedict probably speaks for many in his assessment that - however it happened - the novus ordo departed too quickly and too far from the mainstays of the Church's liturgical tradition. The new ICEL translation aside, some of this difficulty could be addressed by reducing the number of options. A different, more sober and restrained liturgical mentality could be cultivated. (The one area where I might permit more options would be in the choice of lectionary translation, which is restricted to only the problematic NAB, one suspects, for the main reason that the USCCB derives a good deal of revenue from it since they own the rights).I wonder, Father, if a good way to start might be to start making one of the main masses more traditional - some Latin, some simple chant, maybe even ad orientem, things which can be easily done without much extra effort - to allow parishioners to have a taste for it, and to see if this satiates demand for a more traditional liturgy? " The lack of the Prayers of the Faithful in the old rite, I hazard, would make St. Justin Martyr puzzled."Or anyone else wondering why the priest says "Oremus" yet no prayers ensue at that point..."St. Athanasius would be scratching his head how the "Sunday of Sundays" was celebrated on Saturday morning! Let's not forget: Vatican II had good reasons for looking at the liturgy. "Too many of the traditionalists easily overlook the arc of major changes made to the old missal beginning with Pius X through John XXIII - there was, as Alcuin Reid (hardly a progressive) notes, a strong and growing sense of the need for reform of the liturgy. The mass was not meant to be frozen in amber. Even if the end result has not always been what Bouyer, Jungman, or the aforementioned popes may have had in mind.

Mr. Lender,Thanks for your comments. My point was that the schismatics seem to thing that the choice of rites is doctrinal, and not a matter of appropriate and liturgiacally effective practice. I doubt Benedict would agree. They also seem to think that doctrinal positions taken at V2 are negotiable. Again I doubt Benedict thinks of it this way. Clearing up misunderstandings, if there are any, is one thing; doctrinal concessions are another. The comment from the Society of Pius X suggests that they think that they have all the cards and that the Pope, anxious for reconciliation, has a weak hand. If that is what they think, I believe the Motu Proprio, albeit unintentionally, has encourage that thinking.

"And Joseph - "Bennie" aka the Holy Father was more than just a priest at VII, he was a peritus to one of the council's chair board members - meaning he probably reviewed and commented on every VII document while it was being written. I would tend to think he knows of which he speaks."More involved with some documents than others. It's generally conceded that he had a significant role in the drafting of Lumen Gentium.

Hello Joseph,It's hard to read those tea leaves. I don't doubt that some are feeling their oats this morning. Another way of looking at it is that traddies on the fence could see they now have one less reason to stay out in the cold. Not everyone likes to wear a hairshort forever.The pattern set with the case of the Institute of the Good Shepherd in Bordeaux last fall could be instructive. They are permitted to make "constructive" critiques of V2 documents, and read it in continuity with tradition, but they still had to accept it as a valid ecumenical council, and the novus ordo as a valid mass. And so will SSPX if they want to come back.That case as well as that of Campos suggests that some could be open to reasonable compromises. But I think we both agree that some won't settle for anything but the entire ranch.

Joseph Gannon of the restrained Northeast writes: You say, "Generally speaking, it seems to me that those who want the Latin Mass think it will stem the tide of Mass-libbing. The logic seems to be that in the olden days, we didn't have hand clapping, peace hugging, hand-holding at the Our Father, banjo picking, etc.--ergo, when Latin comes back those things will disappear."We don't see stuff like that in my restrained parish here in the serene Northeast. At least not at any mass I attend. What is going on in the Middle West? Jean from the Midwest replies: OK, I exaggerated about the banjo picking. But during the "peacing" in the aisles people seek out their special friends to hug and chat up. Everybody holds hands during the Our Father, and that means a certain amount of shuffling around to bridge gaps in the seating and across aisles. Most of the hymns were written after 1970. Our organist is getting old, so we have to make do with a guitarist most of the time. He's added some sort of a drum. The announcements are read before the dismissal. The deacon usually adds updates on his family health situation just before dismissal and asks for special prayers for himself and family.Dismissal goes, "The Mass is ended for NOW; let us go forth in peace." The priest or deacon offers quick hugs and hand pats to various individuals along the recessional route. (I would rather he just throw loose change; it would come in handy at coffee hour.)Wedding renewal vows always occur at the very beginning of the Mass, which may be standard procedure, but there is always time out for snapshots and applause and invites to everyone to meet up after Mass for cake in the Bingo hall.Sermons are often rambling, have little to do with the readings, and are often happy trips down memory lane, where the deacon or priest recalls being strapped with a belt if he goofed off at Mass and how we could use more of that.And that's just what goes on at Mass proper.I know I sound like a crank. The Church is Christ's community, and I don't think Jesus was without a sense of humor. I doubt he could have managed without one. He could have gently moved my parish in a different direction.But I'm not Jesus Christ Almighty, so I've taken to going to another parish.

I think a converse of Barbara's point 11:47 point is also valid -- not only do those excluded from a language others are speaking feel irritated, but those speaking a language that others can't share don't typically behave at their best. I know there have been times when that applied to me, even when the language wasn't English. I'm a little uneasy at being on the inside of the in language group.On the other hand, I might reference the number of informed and aware Protestants and Jews who expressed to me their sense that something was lost in the liturgical changes.

This isn't directly analogous to the English/Latin commentary on the Mass, but I mention it anyway because it was an eyeopener for me about the power of language. While living overseas several years ago, I used be invited to services in a mosque, especially on special occasions such as Eid. I always went as a respectful observer and not as a participant. All of the services were in Arabic, which was not the vernacular of the participants. The participants actively responded in Arabic, etc., but I was somewhat surprised to find out later that only the imam leading the services understood more than a sprinkling of Arabic words. Still, there was an undeniable power in hearing the participants, all lined up shoulder to shoulder and several hundred strong, chanting their responses loudly and in unison. Add the aerobic workout that is a Muslim service--kneeling, bowing, touching the floor, and standing, repeated over and over for up to 45 minutes--and I could understand the "high" and transcendental experience that my Muslim friends said they experienced while praying en masse in a mosque. Perhaps hearing the Mass in Latin helps some Catholics experience a similar connectedness with God. It would be hard to argue with that as something beneficial. My concern, in line with that expressed by David Gibson, is that for some excited about the MP, it is merely the opening salvo in rolling back other Vatican II reforms. One poster, for example, has already expressed his anathema for "female altar persons," "moronic extraordinary Eucharistic ministers," and "Marxist social programs." Scary!

Thanks for sharing your experience at Muslim prayer. Perhaps the Tridentine could benefit from more movement of the assembly :) Men wouldn't have time to stare off into space (or walk outside for a smoke :) . Little old ladies wouldn't have time to pray their rosary beads :)We know, of course, that Jesus addressed his listeners in their language and the Holy Spirit conferred the gift of tongues on the Lord's disciples. Ratzinger notwithstanding, this fascination with Latin befuddles me: A dead language ("foreign" might be redundant, now that I think of it :), originally a vernacular in its own right (so much for precedent today :), resulted in our religious ancestors developing devotions outside of Mass to maintain a modicum of connection to the institutional church, etc.Rolling back Vatican II? O, yes!!!!!!!But, then, our "leaders" want a fearful old man at the helm of Peter's barque.Sad.

I second R M Lender's remark "Another way of looking at it is that traddies on the fence could see they now have one less reason to stay out in the cold. Not everyone likes to wear a hairshort forever."A principal problem here has been those who do want to wear hairshorts forever. The defensive, embattled "prisoner of the Vatican" spirituality found few outlets for expression in the Church of John XXIII and Paul VI, or even JP1. JP2 brought back the fight against communism as a way to be embattled and engage in "spiritual warfare".Lefebvre et seq. provided another alternative, being embattled within the Church. Wearing "hairshorts" to penitentially enforce their will on the Church in true spiritual warfare. Just look at many of the posts attacking the ordinary form of the liturgy, and/or the way it is celebrated -- they attack like a true warrior would..B16 has addressed this issue in a masterful way, by eliminating the tridentine form as a source of contention. And he did it by appealing to the norms of ecumenism, confessing the intransigence of the Church in the past. Can the anti-ecumenical "pius" types accept such graciousness toward themselves, and still reject ecumenism?Yes, but only by being irrational...BTW, I am really horrified at the thought of hairshorts. The scratchy rough shirts are bad enough. But I have probably made enough typos in my life to merit wearing hairshorts for a good long time.

If you visit:www.slatts.blogspot.com,and scroll down the page,you will find a posting about a St. Louis pastor who has made it quite clear that the Tridentine will NOT be said at his parish as long as he's the pastor.Talk about standing up for Vatican II !!!God bless him!

Joseph,I am surprised that you would applaud a pastor publicly stating that certain Catholics will not be ministered to in his parish and the Mass celebrated daily by the Fathers at V2 will not be offered there as if there was something wrong with it. He also goes well beyond his authority if he thinks he can limit his parochial vicars to the ordinary usage.S. P. foresaw possibilities like these and gives the people the right to appeal to their bishop and beyond their bishop to the E. D. Commission to secure their liturgical rights in justice. My guess, however, is that the good and extremely pastoral Archbishop of St. Louis will protect the rights of the Catholic laity there.Your comment about Vatican II reads like a non sequitur to me. I don't see anything in Vatican II about proscribing the extraordinary usage.Maid

Within any parish there will be people whose language preference can't be accommodated. For instance, in my parish there is a contingent of Brazilians who speak Portuguese. If the priest stated that he did not have time or resources to adopt a vernacular Portuguese language service does that mean he is refusing to minister to them?

Or even a better example of a real and serious need: how about mass for the deaf? Is a sign language interpreter a sufficient accommodation or is something lost by not having a priest who can use sign language? Whose "needs" are so important that they must be accommodated however small the group asking for the accommodation?